(02-22-2023 02:03 AM)NYNightOwl Wrote:  

(02-21-2023 01:54 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(02-21-2023 01:45 PM)NYNightOwl Wrote:  

(02-18-2023 12:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-18-2023 12:32 AM)Texasowl Wrote:  Why cant we get a corporate sponsor for HRS for naming rights for additional funds for renovation in .

I believe current Rice fundraising policies prohibit it.

I asked about 6 months ago if there were any atypical policies restricting Rice athletic fundraising and was told there were not.

Did you define "atypical"? The Rice Way is the Right Way.

Most universities would typically have a stated or implied morality component (e.g. no naming rights sold to Marlboro).

Within reason, at Rice there are NO restrictions on naming rights. There are also none of the restrictions that frequently get posited here such “as any major gift to athletics must be matched by a gift to academics.” Rumors of these restrictions are not only apocryphal but flat out not true.

We just need to create the product that encourages the sponsoring.

I think you're right. No one is engaged in the program. Fans and alums are very put off by Bloomgren's sixth year as coach, after five losing seasons. It doesn't get much worse than that. If he were gone, and a good hire made, money would be coming in. Not tens of millions, but something.

(02-22-2023 10:07 AM)Ourland Wrote:  If he were gone, and a good hire made,

I have been hearing this since the 1960's.

(02-22-2023 10:09 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-22-2023 10:07 AM)Ourland Wrote:  If he were gone, and a good hire made,

I have been hearing this since the 1960's.

C'mon now. We hired Fred Golsmith, Ken Hatfield, and David Bailiff. Rice can do it.

(02-22-2023 11:44 AM)Ourland Wrote:  

(02-22-2023 10:09 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-22-2023 10:07 AM)Ourland Wrote:  If he were gone, and a good hire made,

I have been hearing this since the 1960's.

C'mon now. We hired Fred Golsmith, Ken Hatfield, and David Bailiff. Rice can do it.

One out of three isn't bad, I guess. Goldsmith was actually getting a slew of Top-100 talent each year. That's what we've got to somehow have.

(02-22-2023 11:52 AM)wrysal Wrote:  

(02-22-2023 11:44 AM)Ourland Wrote:  

(02-22-2023 10:09 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-22-2023 10:07 AM)Ourland Wrote:  If he were gone, and a good hire made,

I have been hearing this since the 1960's.

C'mon now. We hired Fred Golsmith, Ken Hatfield, and David Bailiff. Rice can do it.

One out of three isn't bad, I guess. Goldsmith was actually getting a slew of Top-100 talent each year. That's what we've got to somehow have.

Kenny and Fred focused on defense and found gems on offense... scheming 'different' to maximize what they had and what they could get. Most of their top 100 players were on defense, and of course then they found Trevor, whom many other overlooked. Their option blocking schemes were tough to defend against, and Cobb's style and strength took amazing advantage of it.

I can't fault Bailiff as he did have some great seasons... and a nice parcel of NFL talent. His problem was that he couldn't leverage his success. Either for the University OR for himself. Similarly, Kenny ran out of steam... and Fred couldn't replicate his success at his future stops.

We either need to do something completely different like Navy... OR we need to do something more similar to what others do, but in an innovative or unique way.

Out-recruiting people is not a long-term option for us I don't think... at least not until we demonstrate we can win without them.... and even then, unless we somehow have/get/develop the NIL money that these other places have. I have no idea where all this money comes from/what it generates... other than just to be a legal way to funnel booster bucks... I don't see a TON of advertising now with these people, nor do I see 'games' paying for these images.

(02-22-2023 01:47 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I have no idea where all this money comes from/what it generates...

What, by far, is the biggest source of money in sports? There's your answer.

Hint: it's not media rights, ticket sales, or alumni donations.

(02-22-2023 11:44 AM)Ourland Wrote:  

(02-22-2023 10:09 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-22-2023 10:07 AM)Ourland Wrote:  If he were gone, and a good hire made,

I have been hearing this since the 1960's.

C'mon now. We hired Fred Golsmith, Ken Hatfield, and David Bailiff. Rice can do it.

And fired two of those three.

(02-23-2023 12:50 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(02-22-2023 01:47 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I have no idea where all this money comes from/what it generates...

What, by far, is the biggest source of money in sports? There's your answer.

Hint: it's not media rights, ticket sales, or alumni donations.

I'm sorry but I'm not following.

My ask/question is that I don't see that TV revenue (perhaps the largest user of players NIL) is being diverted from the schools to the players.... or ticket sales money is being diverted... or jersey sales by the schools or what have you. I see individuals and consortiums simply 'buying' athletes... often with little or no use of their NIL in return. I don't mean 'never', but if a guy is being paid $1mm/yr, I'd expect to see his name or image in public spaces with some regularity... and I don't. I think I've seen ONE such example. Example, I'd expect to see Matress Mack doing a commercial with some UH players in exchange for money.

So other than buying players.... what is this for, and why aren't meaningful chunks of NIL monies coming from the TV (or other) revenue who quite obviously and repeatedly use their NIL? If you want to say the schools should pay NIL out of the TV deal they've struck, that's fine.... but they aren't doing that... in fact it would be against NCAA rules for them to do so.

ETA, the collective you... not you personally, WRC.

(02-23-2023 10:47 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-23-2023 12:50 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(02-22-2023 01:47 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I have no idea where all this money comes from/what it generates...

What, by far, is the biggest source of money in sports? There's your answer.

Hint: it's not media rights, ticket sales, or alumni donations.

I'm sorry but I'm not following.

My ask/question is that I don't see that TV revenue (perhaps the largest user of players NIL) is being diverted from the schools to the players.... or ticket sales money is being diverted... or jersey sales by the schools or what have you. I see individuals and consortiums simply 'buying' athletes... often with little or no use of their NIL in return. I don't mean 'never', but if a guy is being paid $1mm/yr, I'd expect to see his name or image in public spaces with some regularity... and I don't. I think I've seen ONE such example. Example, I'd expect to see Matress Mack doing a commercial with some UH players in exchange for money.

So other than buying players.... what is this for, and why aren't meaningful chunks of NIL monies coming from the TV (or other) revenue who quite obviously and repeatedly use their NIL? If you want to say the schools should pay NIL out of the TV deal they've struck, that's fine.... but they aren't doing that... in fact it would be against NCAA rules for them to do so.

ETA, the collective you... not you personally, WRC.

The only NIL folks I've seen are on the Dr Pepper fansville commercials.

https://www.si.com/college/alabama/bamac...-blackwell

(02-23-2023 10:53 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  The only NIL folks I've seen are on the Dr Pepper fansville commercials.

https://www.si.com/college/alabama/bamac...-blackwell

Good example. Whom is SI paying for the use of the players names and images?

(02-23-2023 09:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-22-2023 11:44 AM)Ourland Wrote:  

(02-22-2023 10:09 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-22-2023 10:07 AM)Ourland Wrote:  If he were gone, and a good hire made,

I have been hearing this since the 1960's.

C'mon now. We hired Fred Golsmith, Ken Hatfield, and David Bailiff. Rice can do it.

And fired two of those three.

By the time they were fired, they needed to go, but they still did good jobs with the program.

(02-23-2023 10:16 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(02-23-2023 09:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-22-2023 11:44 AM)Ourland Wrote:  

(02-22-2023 10:09 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-22-2023 10:07 AM)Ourland Wrote:  If he were gone, and a good hire made,

I have been hearing this since the 1960's.

C'mon now. We hired Fred Golsmith, Ken Hatfield, and David Bailiff. Rice can do it.

And fired two of those three.

By the time they were fired, they needed to go, but they still did good jobs with the program.

So, we "did it" by hiring them, and then we fired them, looking for the "good hire". Like I said, same ol', same ol' since the 60's. We hire somebody, then fire them even if they have some success, either because they cannot sustain their success (Bailiff), or they have plateaued (also Bailiff), or they are boring(hatfield), or stale (also Hatfield) or...(insert current gripe here).

Maybe Bloom needs to be gone, but I have little faith that the next "good hire" will be any better. Ususally all that happens is the pictures in the coaches office change.

(02-24-2023 01:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Maybe Bloom needs to be gone, but I have little faith that the next "good hire" will be any better. Ususally all that happens is the pictures in the coaches office change.

That is at least in part because Rice's hiring process has been horrible. A committee of academics, who may or may not know anything about football, is a collection of the wrong people to be hiring a football coach. It's not like hiring a faculty member (and I've been on a few committees to hire those).

(02-24-2023 03:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-24-2023 01:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Maybe Bloom needs to be gone, but I have little faith that the next "good hire" will be any better. Ususally all that happens is the pictures in the coaches office change.

That is at least in part because Rice's hiring process has been horrible. A committee of academics, who may or may not know anything about football, is a collection of the wrong people to be hiring a football coach. It's not like hiring a faculty member (and I've been on a few committees to hire those).

We keep trying to hire a guy who will stay.

We are not in a position to do that, unless the reason the guy will stay is that he does something that few other places want to do... like either Ken (Hat or N).... or if he is a Rice guy.

If he REMOTELY does what everyone else does and does not bleed Blue and Grey then we need to repeatedly hire people who will come in... win fast and get hired away... and then we need to quickly hire the next guy... preferably from his staff or at least coaching philosophy tree)

We need to do this until people become convinced that there is something about Rice and our committment that makes these people able to do this... and not merely a lucky streak of good coaches. At that point, we are getting recruits that a regular first year coach isn't going to get... we are getting first year candidates and assistants that Rice wouldn't normally get... etc etc etc. Coaches are saying, if you are a young up and comer and want to get to the big leagues, Rice is a great place to launch that from... and players are saying the same thing.

You do that until we get an invite to the big leagues.... and NOW you can keep them because we are a destination as opposed to an opportunity... and if we never do become a destination, then we never stop doing that.

The only other opportunity is to carve a niche like the Savannah Bananas (not necessarily meaning comedy, but a niche nonetheless, and I have suggested some ways to do that) that allows us to pay 'big boy' salaries and have 'big boy' amenities without being part of the 'big boy consortium'.

Hiring coaches who struggle early until they can get 'their guys' in is a recipe for disaster because many people don't want to play for losing teams, even for just a year or two.... much less 4. So he can't GET 'his guys'. Hiring a coach who makes a splash and then 'fighting off' tepid offers to hire him away without having more in the tank such that we're having to reduce travel budgets in order to pay higher salaries or what have you is similarly a recipe for disaster. If we can't justify upping EVERY budget by the percentage of money it would take to keep a HC then we need to let him go and probably hire from his staff. We need to at least be able to offer what he would want to pay his OC or DC or Assistant Head Coach at his next stop... to be his own head coach.

(02-24-2023 01:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-23-2023 10:16 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(02-23-2023 09:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-22-2023 11:44 AM)Ourland Wrote:  

(02-22-2023 10:09 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I have been hearing this since the 1960's.

C'mon now. We hired Fred Golsmith, Ken Hatfield, and David Bailiff. Rice can do it.

And fired two of those three.

By the time they were fired, they needed to go, but they still did good jobs with the program.

So, we "did it" by hiring them, and then we fired them, looking for the "good hire". Like I said, same ol', same ol' since the 60's. We hire somebody, then fire them even if they have some success, either because they cannot sustain their success (Bailiff), or they have plateaued (also Bailiff), or they are boring(hatfield), or stale (also Hatfield) or...(insert current gripe here).

Maybe Bloom needs to be gone, but I have little faith that the next "good hire" will be any better. Ususally all that happens is the pictures in the coaches office change.

...and it'll never be different. Rice is a graveyard of head football coaches. Success is very difficult to come by, and almost impossible to sustain. The academic requirements are killing us, and they always will. No depth. By November we're done. Only on rare occasions is it any different. The same thing will happen this year. We may start well, but the bottom will fall out by the end of the season, and we'll limp, scratch, and claw our way to five or six wins. Wash, rinse, repeat.

(02-24-2023 09:45 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  We keep trying to hire a guy who will stay.

I don't want a guy who will stay. I want a guy who will go 7-5, 9-3, 9-3, and leave for the head job at, say Ole Miss, followed by a guy who will go 10-2, 10-2, 10-2, and leave for the head job at, say, Baylor, followed by a guy who will go 11-1, 12-0, 11-1, and leave for the head job at, say, Notre Dame.

Get to where winning 9 becomes routine. Then get to where winning 10 becomes routine. From there, winning 11 or 12 becomes possible. And there would be plenty of "signature" wins along that way.

Nutt. Koetter. Hawkins. Petersen. Harsin. Avalos.

That suits me fine. 262-68 over 26 years.

But to hire those people you need a process that is totally different from the Rice process. I would have two questions for any prospective coach. One, how good can you make Rice be? Two, how do you plan to make that happen? I doubt that either ever gets asked in our current hiring process.

I do know personally one candidate for AD and another for football coach who came prepared to answer both of those questions, and their answers were very good to both. In both cases, the respective hiring committees did not want to hear.

(02-24-2023 03:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-24-2023 01:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Maybe Bloom needs to be gone, but I have little faith that the next "good hire" will be any better. Ususally all that happens is the pictures in the coaches office change.

That is at least in part because Rice's hiring process has been horrible. A committee of academics, who may or may not know anything about football, is a collection of the wrong people to be hiring a football coach. It's not like hiring a faculty member (and I've been on a few committees to hire those).

Even if we do make a great hire, he's leaving as quickly as he can. Then we start the whole process over. It's depressing. It's no wonder why we're always pissed off here. Men's athletics at Rice is a disaster. There's no other way to describe it. It's a horrible school to pull for. There's never a reward for being a true fan of such an athletically dismal school, but every year we keep coming back for more. We're actually the one's with the problem. We're sick. There's something wrong with all of us for being so dedicated to such a train wreck, and for so many years. Nothing will ever change.

(02-24-2023 10:26 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-24-2023 09:45 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  We keep trying to hire a guy who will stay.

I don't want a guy who will stay. I want a guy who will go 7-5, 9-3, 9-3, and leave for the head job at, say Ole Miss, followed by a guy who will go 10-2, 10-2, 10-2, and leave for the head job at, say, Baylor, followed by a guy who will go 11-1, 12-0, 11-1, and leave for the head job at, say, Notre Dame.

Nutt. Koetter. Hawkins. Petersen. Harsin. Avalos.

That suits me fine. 262-68 over 26 years.

it'll never happen.

(02-24-2023 10:11 AM)Ourland Wrote:  Success is very difficult to come by, and almost impossible to sustain.

That's because success is not an objective. Not making waves is the objective.

Losing is okay as long as you have a good enough excuse. If you don't know where you are going, the path of least resistance will get you there.

The path of least resistance will never lead to 7-5, 9-3, 9-3, not to mention any better than that.

(02-24-2023 02:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-24-2023 10:11 AM)Ourland Wrote:  Success is very difficult to come by, and almost impossible to sustain.

That's because success is not an objective. Not making waves is the objective.

Losing is okay as long as you have a good enough excuse. If you don't know where you are going, the path of least resistance will get you there.

The path of least resistance will never lead to 7-5, 9-3, 9-3, not to mention any better than that.

Correct, but respectively, Rice isn't taking a path of least resistance. Rice is taking it's path, and it likes it that way. Rice knows damn well what it needs to do to have competitive men's athletics, it simply doesn't care to make the changes and investments necessary to bring it to fruition. It's going to work within the parameters that were set in stone one hundred years ago. It has no desire to change. It will always do the minimum.